I am definitely in favor of requiring airlines to list the total price upfront. Often I think I have a great deal, but then discover that it’s not so great after all when the taxes and fees add up to almost as much as the ticket itself. It might be good for airlines to be required to itemize the taxes and fees too, since I never have any clue what they cover. The DOT should require this type of disclosure too.

Totally in agreement. It would appear that airlines are now making more money from the “taxes and other fees” than from the “fare” portion of what we pay them. Online travel agent services like Expedia, Travelocity or Orbitz should be required to show the full cost including all applicable taxes.

1) There should be a minimum legroom size. Most airline have seats with 31″ pitch, which prevents tall customers from sitting with their legs straight in front of them. Several hours of flying with legs canted to one side or the other is painful on both knees and hips. It is inexcusable to require tall passengers to pay large amounts of additional money to have adequate leg room.

2) On the other hand, overweight passengers who take up half of the seat of the person next to them should be required to pay for an additional seat. It is unconscionable to require a passenger to have an overweight stranger plastered against them for several hours.

3) Airport screening should be equitable for all passengers. There is no justification for first class passengers having a separate and short line while other passengers endure long waits. First class passengers pay the airlines for the superior accommodation, service, and food they receive while on board the airplane. However, the screening is carried out by TSA, which is a government agency and, as taxpayers and citizens, we all should be treated equally.

(1) Advertised prices should reflicct the ENTIRE price that must be paid.
(2) Optional services should be opt-in
(3) Post-purchase increases should be permitted only if the purchaser is permitted to cance/change plans without penalty.

Methods for pricing and advertising are inconsistent for both air carriers and third-party sellers, resulting in confusion for consumers that borders on fraud. Fees and surcharges paid to the airline can be misrepresented as government imposed taxes and surcharges. The following consumer protections should be imposed:

1. Final airfare cost should be fully disclosed in all advertising and sales.

2. Fuel and other surcharges paid to an airline should not be misrepresented to the consumer as government-imposed taxes and fees.

3. Baggage and all required additional travel costs should be fully disclosed and paid for by the consumer at the time of purchase (not a surprise at the ticket counter!).

The DOT proposal is very good but is not strict enough to provide adequate and necessary consumer protection.

Giving the consumer’s more information regarding pricing schemes is definitely helpful for those who travel on a budget.

I think that post-purchase price increases should be banned. If a compromise must be reached, then any consumer must be allowed to refund their ticket if prices are increased–even if the ticket was non-refundable. Trapping consumers like this is horrible and quite unethical.

Taxes and fees collected along with non-refundable fares should be refundable.
These are usually taxes or fees collected on behalf of the US or other governments and include such fees as border crossings, customs and agricultural inspection, taxes on ticket fares, security charges, airport use, etc.
When a ticket is canceled, these services are not used and the governments and other public facilities entitled to the fees do not receive them.
In effect, the airlines are stealing and pocketing money they collect on behalf of government entities!

I’ve (knock on wood) never had to cancel a flight after purchase, but that blows my mind. LHR, the last time I flew there, had $400 in taxes on each ticket. If I’d cancelled, the airline would have kept the airport’s money? That’s insane!

That’s an interesting point. Many major airlines seem to have the policy that for customers canceling a non-refundable ticket, the entire cost, including taxes, is applied as a credit to future ticket purchases. They will, however, include a cancellation fee (approx. $100-150). This is true for JetBlue, United, and US Airways. Do any contributors know of airlines that do not allow the cancellation of non-refundable tickets to be used as a credit like this?

.. not all airlines allow the entire canceled value of the ticket to apply to a new ticket.. UNited allows you to “bank” the value of the ticket..there is a time limit of one year.. also, United charges a “change of ticket fee” of at least $150.

Southwest says they apply 100% to a new ticket but there always seems to be a price increase or that price ticket is not available or some other excuse so that you always have to pay more. Also the ticket expires in one year, so you fly or you lose it.

No, no, no, no, no to a less-than-complete ban. If it’s not an outright ban, the airlines, hotels, and tour operators will quickly concoct schemes to give themselves the right to do whatever they want to their prices after the fact.

The European Union already requires that airlines post FULL prices, including taxes/fees, at the very first presentation of fares. This is required for flights originating in Europe.

American airlines respect this rule when a passenger enters their foreign-based web site, but airlines do not respect the rule when a passenger books the same flight (originating in Europe) from the USA version of the airline’s web site.

This can be verified on Continental.com by selecting the country (US or other) at the top right of the web page and simulating a booking out of a European city.

Rule should require US airlines to show full fare regardless of which web site version is used.

Prior to the implementation of passenger facility fees in the 1990s, domestic prices did include all taxes, although occasionally certain certain city surcharges were not included. The industry did just fine. I have no problem with a carrier charging a given fare but they should be honest about what the total cost of the ticket is to the passenger rather than stating a price and putting $30-$50 into the mix at time of purchase. If federal excise taxes can be included, there is no reason why other taxes, fees, and surcharges cannot be part of an advertised price. I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Ideally this would cover international as well as domestic travel as taxes, fees, and surcharges on international tickets frequently add hundreds of dollars to a price quote.

Once purchased, ticket prices should be guaranteed. I support the complete ban. If the DOT decides to have a looser standard, passengers should be allowed to get their money returned if they choose not to pay the post-purchase fee.

Ticket prices should include ALL fees seamlessly–no having to opt in or out or read fine print. We should all be able to make a reservation without worrying that we missed something and know exactly what we will pay. It should NEVER be OK to increase the price after a confirmed purchase–this is ludicrous! I do hope the DOT is very strict and across the board with their new regulations. Consumers are being gouged everywhere and it needs to stop.

Not only advertise TOTAL fare- but whether or not the fare is refundable.
Also – beyond the fare – the airlines are adding “FUEL SURCHARGES” to almost all international fares. The Fuel Surcharges need to be described as either refundable or non-refundable as well.

This is just another regulation that takes basic responsibility out of people’s hands. If you can’t do the math to figure out the total cost then you probably should stay home since you can’t figure out the tax on your purchases at stores either.
As long as there is a requirement for a listing of the total cost before they charge you then it is up to the consumer to ASK what those other fees are.

How do I ask? I’m talking to a computer program which doesn’t have a Do you have any questions? box to check. And the reason I’m on the computer is that there is an additional charge if I call a person who can answer those questions.

Accurate fare disclosures will be very difficult. Airline fares are subject to routing restrictions, or, basically a list of acceptable cities through which connecting flights can be taken when necessary.

Taxes and fees can vary depending on the connecting city being used which makes full disclosure dependent on knowing the route the fare takes, and whether or not seats are available for any given day.

Keep in mind that advertised prices are very often not available for all flights. They are subject to availability.

One HUGE source of irritation are “surcharges”. They can be zero or as high as $300 round trip, possibly more. These seem never to be disclosed with any clarity, but in conjunction with other taxes and fees can cause the real price to be nearly double the advertised price.

Admittedly, full disclosure would be ideal. But, the tax and fee structure used would require revamping first in order to have adequate consistency to be able to publish a fare with a degree of accuracy.

Yes to one way fare proposal! NO, no wiggle room: all fare prices should be as stated and final! All this caveats are just indended to provide sellers with means to mislead customers into thinking the fare could be smaller than it is!

Yes, ticket sellers will incur costs to adjust the websites and selling practices; however, these are the costs they incurred for unfair advertizing at the moment they created their current web sites and other means of semi-deceptive sales!

Travel providers should absolutely not be allowed to advertise a “one-way” price when a round-trip purchase is required. That’s like a store advertising the price of one sneaker! Well, obviously you have to buy two sneakers so why would a store advertise the price for just one. Likewise, travel providers should clearly display the round-trip cost IF a round-trip purchase is required to obtain that fare.

Thanks for your comments. Would you prefer to see a breakdown of taxes, fees, and the fare, as well as the total price, or just the total price, perhaps with a note that all applicable taxes and fees are included? Also, would you rather have advertisers show simply the one way fare, or also let you know what the one-way fare would be if a round trip ticket were purchased? Basically, would you prefer advertisers present more information, or just keep it simple?

It makes no sense and is misleading to quote a one way price if I have to buy a roundtrip ticket. If the itemization is Boston to Bombay fare, then various fees, then Bombay to Boston fare and various fees, it is still misleading unless it is specifically preceded by “Round Trip Required” If I just want to go from Boston to Bombay and stay there or go somewhere else, I shouldn’t buy this ticket and I should know it “up front.”

Absolutely NO increase in price for anything that’s already been paid for! There are too many simple-minded examples of why this is just wrong. I couldn’t even list them all here. Bottom line is, once a customer has agreed upon a price with the seller… and that happens when the customer pays… the seller absolutely cannot go back and play “changes” with the price. Once you pay for it, it’s paid for, done… no more money can be collected from the customer. Even if the travel provider made a mistake on the price… they should have to absorb their mistake. It’s the travel provider’s mistake… the customer agreed to the deal in good faith with the seller and paid the seller as expected. There is no way the seller should be permitted to collect additional funds from the customer.

As a hypothetical, would your response still be the same if something drastic and unforeseeable were to take place such that fuel prices quadrupled between the ticket purchase date and the date of the flight? Do you think that in this extreme situation, the airline still should not be able to impose a surcharge?

What do others think about Keithanywhere’s response and about this hypothetical?

I definitely agree with Keithanywhere’s statement that “Once you pay for it, it’s paid for, done… no more money can be collected from the customer.” I can’t think of any other business transaction where it would be acceptable for a company to require a customer to pay more money after the transaction is completed.

In an extreme situation like the one you proposed, I think an airline should still be restricted and NOT be able to impose a surcharge.

I also agree that “Once you pay for it… no more money can be collected from the customer”, in in extreme situations such a a spike in fuel costs. An airline can hedge its fuel costs by signing long term agreements. I believe that Southwest has done this.

You are either in business or guaranteed profit. You cannot have it both ways. Every business has its risks and good management deals with it accordingly. Passing those risks on to your customers in inappropriate. Once a purchase is completed a contract is in effect.

On the other hand, if customers are provided the right to cancel according to their self-determined “drastic” circumstances with a full and immediate refund I might think differently.

This whole process of additional regulation is brought about because of lack of disclosure by airlines and agents when they unbundle services and initiate obscene fees for them so that we buy tickets and still don’t have a deal because we may still be hit by additional fees at checkin. A DEAL SHOULD BE A DEAL!

If in your hypothetical, fuel prices go down 25% do you think the airlines would or should give you a rebate? Would they? Of course not. Should they? Does a Gas Station put up a sign saying I’m going to lower my prices 10 cents a gallon tomorrow, come back then.?

Any and all fees potentially associated with a fare should be disclosed in full, in a clear and concise manner. This should include differentiating between which charges originate from an airline and which don’t, and should also include a clear explanation of the differences between what rights you have at different fare levels.

The astronomical airport taxes levied at some international destinations spring immediately to mind as one charge that is mandatory for all fares, fixed, and something that will not vary if a consumer goes to shop with another airline.

As far as post-purchase price changes go, they should be considered fraudulent. It would be one thing if the airlines automatically refunded you money when they re-price a flight below the price you paid at time of purchase, because the potential for price changes would then at least go both ways. But since no airline, as far as I know, offers anything like a pre-order guarantee, the price paid at the time of purchase needs to be the last word in what the flight costs. (Barring any on-site add-ons like the customer bringing a heavy bag, or deciding to purchase an alcoholic beverage.)

All the proposed solutions sound great to me. Advertised prices should always include the total price (taxes, etc.) for any seller of a ticket. No one should be allowed to “increase” the price of a ticket once it is purchased. It is up to the “seller” to know what they need to charge for a ticket. If they are too lazy to keep updated, they should eat the cost.

I agree with all the DOT proposals for air travel, however I also agree with what others have stated regarding “one way / each way” fare proposal not going far enough. If round trip is required than the full RT fare is what should be in the ad.

Should DOT have a “one way” fare proposal for hotel/air and tour packages? Yes, definitely.

Regarding post purchase price increases, that practice is either extortion or coercion or both, and should be completely banned. If I purchase a trip at a particular price that is our contracted price and they should not be allowed to change it, thus destroying my plans and/or leaving such a bad taste of being ripped off that it effectively ruins the trip. Since this is sometimes done close to departure date it leaves customers/passengers with little option but to pay.

The DOT should require posting of occupancy based rates similarly to the posting of one way fares.

The purchase price quoted should be the purchase price. The idea that a consumer could purchase a product and weeks or months later after vacation time has been booked at work and other plans made, the price could be increased is absolutely wrong.

The only additions to an airfare should be government mandated taxes and fees.

“Surcharges” should not be allowed in any case. Fuel, for example, is part of the airline’s basic cost. It should not be an add on to a fare, but part of it.

If an airline wants to charge more on a certain day, the base fare should include that charge. It should never be added on.

And the proposed rule that the total fare be shown is the only appropriate way to avoid deceptive practices. If an airline wishes to inform a customer about the cost of taxes, is should be allowed to list the base fare before taxes in no greater than 1/2 the typeface of the total fare along with the total fare.

Since all these airlines are still split on what services call for fees and how much those services actually cost, they need to create a standard for every airline to use as a basis for quoting prices. Go back a few years to what was considered “standard”, and have them quote on:

Excellent suggestions, Darkhelmet22. The idea of automatically including certain options with a clear option to remove them is intriguing. Does anyone else have suggestions on what options should be considered “standard”?

I run a retail business. If I changed my prices every few minutes or hours like the airline does or charge my customers different prices on the same day. They would probably never come back and call the better business bureau. How is it that airlines can stick it to us passengers any way they please? And they wonder why so much distrust and angry customers.
Recently I wrote to one airline that had a ticket price of around $198. but then listed the taxes at something like $400.00 extra. I told them it was Bait and Add on. Similar to some retail stores that Bait customers with low price and then Switch to higher priced goods. It is illegal and called Bait and Switch. The airlines or some ticket sellers are guilty of lies. Taxes are never higher than the price of the ticket. How dumb do airlines think we are?
I spend hours trying to buy a ticket without getting ripped off. It should not be this difficult. And one way fare should be half of a RT not higher than RT. They force us to buy RT and then use only the one way portion.

Thank you for your comment bill. I take it you support a full ban on post purchase price increases. Would a less strict proposal, such as forcing airlines to disclose price increases and requiring customers to affirmatively agree to them, be sufficient? Would a partial ban on price increases preventing them 30-60 days before the flight work?

No! Retroactive pricing is essentially fraud and violates the contract made when money changes hands.

I would favor a rule that disallowed even having a round trip requirement for prices. If an airline wants to give a credit for roundtrip like stores give case discounts on groceries or such, and listed it as a separate credit in their advertising and on their ticket that might work.

Fares from Boston to New York might vary by time of day and by day of the week but they should never be based on Round Trip Required.

Thanks for your thoughts, Ken and Joel, and welcome to Regulation Rooom. We will keep your posts in mind as we prepare our summary of the discussion on this site–come back periodically to see if we are done, and to read other users comments–you keep us honest!

In the mean time, check out the rest of the website and rule proposals. We’d love to hear your thoughts!

I find it inherently frustrating to purchase an airline ticket. Prices go up in the few minutes it takes you to check another airline’s fare. This “price regulation by Ouija board” is slanted against the consumer.

A passenger’s relationship to an airline is that of consumer to goods purveyor, a quid pro quo. The transaction should be nothing if not straightforward and clear to both parties. When I buy a tank of gas for my car, I choose a pricing option and fill my tank. The price of those fuel gallons doesn’t rise while my tank fills. I know what I’m going to pay and I know what I’m going to get for that payment. Hard to believe that airlines should look to the fuel industry for guidance, but there you go.

Finally, there’s a sort of bait-and-switch going on, with the airlines promising comfort and care, when the reality is that most passengers will be highly uncomfortable for the duration of their flight, at least those taller than 5 foot five. The airlines industry assumes that all people are created equal – we can all fold ourselves into pretzels and remain that way in our seats for the duration of the flight. What of the pregnant woman? What of the old man with bad knees or the woman with a bad hip?

Thank you for your comment, alpet. You raise some very important concerns. The DOT is particularly interested to hear possible solutions. Should all fare increases be prohibited within 30-60 days prior to the flight? Should restrictions be placed upon the way airlines can advertise, if so how?

There has also been many reported incidences of credits taking months if not years to be provided by airlines. The DOT should require INSTANTANEOUS credits. Our debit/credit cards should be credited within the same time frame as they were debited for the original purchase. Any delay should warrant a substantial fine.

1) Unless you can purchase the one way fare and ultimately find seating, I think any offer requiring round trip should be disclosed as such. This goes for hotel and/or air and packages.
2) No increase of prices after the purchase unless the customer agrees prior to the transaction without any additional inducement.
3) These changes would benefit the customers and place no additional burden on the sellers. All the gotchas in small print in the advertising costs more then the changes needed to make the site cleaner, leaner and fairer.

I believe airlines should be forced to fully reimburse confirmed passengers whenever the airline changes flight schedules after booking. I frequently reserve flights up to one year in advance, in order to secure the lowest price and best seat. I do this even though the airline will charge me $150 (plus fare difference) to change my itinerary for personal reasons once booked.

For example, a trip to Europe on United Airlines has now been changed 7 times by the airline since I confirmed my reservation in December 2009. The resulting changes have added nearly 5 hours to the total trip, plus I’m now required to leave at 3AM for the airport (instead of my original departure of 8AM), and I return after midnight, rather than a more reasonable 10:30PM.

In addition, United Airlines has not offered to waive the change fee, nor provide seats on alternate dates or airline partners.

If I’m required to pay exorbitant fees to the airlines to change my original itinerary, due to personal circumstances, then the airlines should also be required to compensate inconvenienced passengers in full AND provide satisfactory alternate travel arrangements comparable to the original flight schedule.

Perhaps this would force the airlines to recognize the hardships they create for passengers when schedules are revised after passengers have already received confirmed flights and make related travel arrangements.

Thank you for your comment. Please elaborate what might be adequate compensation say if you booked a flight well in advance, received confirmation, and made plan accordingly, only to have the scenario as you described occur? What, for example should be the compensation for the additional 5 hours tacked onto your original flight schedule?

This is the same as bumping and should be compensated (punishment to the airlines) as such. See my comments under that category. It is not just the five hours, though that is bad enough; it is all the other inconveniences, arriving late at night, having to cancel engagements, having to call a cab for a long ride vs bus transportation, and a myriad other inconveniences for which the airlines in their hubris currently accepts no responsibility.

Airlines should not be able to advertise a one-way fare unless it is indeed the price for one way, not based on round trip. They should not be able to ask for additional money if the price goes up unless the opposite is true…if prices go down, the consumer should get an immediate refund-not have to ask for it. Honest price information will definitely help the consumer make an informed decision about which airline to fly. I’m not concerned how the changes will affect ticket sellers … it is false advertising they’re engaged in.

Where are the real penalties for the airlines when they changes something? All the real charges are burdened on the consumer with only limited impositions on the carriers.

I often travel in a party of 4 and when the airlines change flights my seat assignments are all over.

I have been on flights where water was dripping from overhead, seats were seat backs and arm rests were stuck in bad positions, where the seat was sunken and were the smell was foul.

I wonder if anyone has measured the noise damage caused by sitting in those last couple of aisles by the engines.

I am been on trips where I was forced to stand in lines, rebook on very alternate roots and incurred delays due to equipment failure (and often multiple on one flight).

There should be minimum standards for operation (better than what they have now) and direct payback to the customers when these airlines deviate from the norm. I have to pay them when I do it why shouldn’t they?

It’s very simple. I should be able to buy a flight for the price advertised in large print. If the ad says $49 from SFO to LAX, then that’s what I should be paying. If it is not a one-way price, then it should be listed as $98 round trip. If there are other fees, then the listed price should include those fees. It’s simple – just be honest.

I have consistently had the problem where I selected a flight, and clicked the “Select” button, only to be told that the price had suddenly risen by hundreds of dollars. It’s the old “bait and switch”. When I cancel and start over again, I see the same thing: a low-ball offer, with a much higher price when I try to buy the ticket.

Airlines (or travel agencies such as Travelocity) should be required to honor the offered price for at least some number of minutes – at least 10 minutes. If the flight sells out while I’m deciding then fine, but the price I get should be the price I’m offered – if there is a seat still available. No bait and switch while you’re online.

Thanks for your comment, dwilson99. Do you think this should apply to just the ticket price, or to all charges and fees as well? For example, should airlines be able to charge a fuel surcharge if the price of oil skyrockets? Or perhaps they should be forced to eat the loss when that happens?

The price of fuel doesn’t change while I am trying to book a flight. Maybe airlines should only be allowed to change prices once a week, or once a day, always at midnight, or something like that. It is extremely frustrating to try to buy a ticket and have availability and/or price change while you are pushing the “Buy” button.

Agreement here about “taxes and fees”. Exactly what are they? Not only should all hidden fees appear along with the price of the ticket, before a consumer purchases, but they should also break down who is imposing these fees and for what particular tax and/or service? All travel websites along with the airline websites need to be held accountable to these rules.

Leg room needs to be standardized throughout the industry. Then a consumer can make a more informed choice of whether or not to pay extra for additional leg room. I recommend the industry adopt a 33″ pitch throughout economy seating.

Increased fees after a ticket has been purchased is nothing short of “bait and switch” which I believe the federal government has declared illegal and prosecutable when businesses attempt to engage in such practices. Airlines need to be held to account like any other business entity. I do not see why airlines should be immune to this by DOT’s proposals.

If all fees and taxes, actual cost of ticket, opt-in extras for baggage and additional leg room would certainly aid me in comparing prices between airlines and allow me a more informed choice.

Airlines, and 3rd party sites should be required to display the full price. Any optional fees should be disclosed and the prospective purchaser given the option of selecting those wanted, so they are included in the price and can be paid at the same time as the ticket. This allows people to compare the total fares.

Ticket sellers should not be allowed to raise the price after the ticket is purchases, except possibly if they will also reduce the price if lower fares are later published for the flight.

I support DOT’s proposed regulations. The pricing system now in place seems like an Old West, frontier-days free-for-all: get as much as you can any way that you can. I never know when to buy a ticket, early or late. Also, to add to the comments below, I agree wholeheartedly with the complaints about too little leg room. It’s become a torture to fly long distances, something to be endured rather than enjoyed, at least for those of us in coach. A sad demise for the industry and its clients.

This is bait and switch type advertisements. They want to bait you into their site and then low and behold your ticket at the price you thought you were going to get was not available. Southwest does this and so do all the other carriers. Taxes and fees can be substantial and needs to be included in the fare quoted in advertisements.

The public desperately needs the protection of regulated full disclosure of the total price of a ticket on all advertisements of any kind (on air broadcasts, in printed publications, on line). I can’t tell you how many times I have committed to an on line ticket purchase I thought was a bargain only to discover a laundry list of undisclosed fees tacked on at a point after I could not back out of the purchase. What in heaven’s name is a ” destination fee”? An extra charge for being delivered to the place for which I have purchased transportation? That’s like being charged a “food fee” in addition to the cost of a meal at a restaurant.

All advertising of fares must state a total price, inclusive, without limiting in any way the generality of either or both of the foregoing or the following, of every cost, fee, charge, tax, device, scheme, gimmick and ripoff, in clearly readable type, not less than 12 point (2 point leaded), prominently in each such advertisement.

Airline fares should be similar to way cruise lines price their cabins, with different fares for different seats and services. There should be no hidden fees to be added later. Thus, aisle seats could have one set of fares which themselves could differe according to what else is included, such as a second bag, food, right to use the bathroom more than once, an extra pillow, and so on. However, all fares should include one free carryon and one free checked bag.

Although DOT does not seem to present this option, I am most concerned about the byzantine price structuring for air fares that have no basis in actual cost of the service rendered. Air travel is a form of public transportation that is subsidized by taxes – and should be regulated as such when fares are set.

My previous submission disappeared. I suggested airlines use a system similar to cruise lines, differentiating fares by categories that specify seat location and services included. Example- in the aisle seat category, differentiate front from back, and then including or not such services as an extra pillow, use of bathroom more than once, free earphone, etc. But one carryon and one checked baggage should always be free, as also the right to use the bathroom one time and one bottle of water free.

1. Full prices should be quoted
2. The airlines should be able to charge for anything on board except water.
3. Set a limit on the total size (by cubic feet) of bags that can be carried on, thus ensuring everyone the chance to stash a bag, not just those in seating sections 1-3. And do this before one gets to the gate. No more free checked bags at the jetway.

DOT should require that when a fare/rate can only be achieved if two persons book that both the one person rate be displayed/provided unless it is clear that the person booking is booking for two.
DOT should not adopt a less strict approach to post-purchase price increases. If I buy a TV at Best Buy, Best Buy cannot come after me later to wring more money out of me. A traveler enters into a contract with an airline whereby the traveler pays a price so that the airline with transport the person somewhere on an agreed-upon date and time. When the airline later changes the price, it is effectively breaking the contract and extorting money out of the traveler who likely will lose more money it he or she objects.
Given the fact that travelers contract for airline travel at different times/dates between the time the airline posts the flight and the date of travel, and people already know that prices can change if they do not buy a ticket, the airline can raise ticket prices on seats purchased later. Further, the airline likely will include possible fuel price fluctuations in their calculation of ticket fares/prices.
Regarding ticket prices, I believe airlines should be required to publish a comparable, typical fare regardless of how they otherwise choose to display their pricing structure. For instance, all airlines should be required to publish the price, fee and tax inclusive, to fly round-trip with one checked bag to the destination. This would allow travelers to compare prices between carriers because the price would be for the same thing. To the extent other services could be provided (e.g. second bag or a premium seat), that could be displayed separately as an opt-in.
The biggest issue I have as a traveler with the various prices and airline price structures is that there is no comparability. While I think I may be getting a good deal with one carrier, there always seems to be some other amount I later must pay that, were it figured into the mix when I made the decision of which carrier to fly with, could have caused me to choose a different carrier.

I believe advertised fares should state the entire price, including fees, taxes, etc. Fares cannot be advertised as one way if the price is only valid with roundtrip fares. These rules should apply to everyone who sells tickets. Post purchase price increases should not be allowed. Optional services should be offered on an opt-in basis.

Advertised prices should include all costs, including baggage, etc. A total cost can go down if a passenger is exempt from checked baggage fees or a seat request fee but it may not go up by adding these fees. All charges should be OPT IN, not OPT OUT.

I definitely agree with making full fare information available and advertising one way fares when indeed it refers to one way, not round trip.
For any airline or travel agent/booking site that treats optional services as op-in SHAM on you!

A traveler should be able to know the full price of the ticket with all optional services included as he searches for a flight. This could be accomplished by presenting a list of all optional services on the first reservation page. The traveler would check off the optional services desired and the fares presented for the itinerary would include these so that a reasonable comparison could be made between airlines.

Consumers have a lot of options for buying airline tickets and air tour packages. Dozens of travel service websites now compete with the airlines’ own sites (as well as with the “old-school” ways of using a neighborhood travel agent or calling the airline reservations number). Competition can be good, but the government is worried that sometimes consumers aren’t getting quite the bargain they think. DOT Department of Transportation is now considering stricter advertising requirements to make sure that ticket buyers aren’t fooled by fees and charges hidden in the fine print. And it’s thinking about whether to ban the practice by some tour operators of reserving the right to increase the ticket price after purchase.

This post will tell you more about what the problems have been, and what solutions DOT Department of Transportation is considering — and alert you to questions DOT particularly wants people to comment on.

Quoting ticket prices without taxes and fees, then listing those charges separately — sometimes with the total cost calculated, but sometimes requiring the consumer to do the math;

Advertising prices for “one-way” fares that are actually available only if the consumer buys a round trip ticket;

Advertising air/hotel packages at a price for double-occupancy, but making them available only if travelers purchase two packages at that price;

As part of unbundling services that used to be included in the ticket price (see Baggage and Other Fees), adding charges for extra services (e.g. premium seat assignments, travel insurance) to the ticket price unless consumers affirmatively “opt out” of buying those services. (Often this is done through a small, pre-checked box — buried in the long set of terms and conditions — that the consumer has to uncheck to avoid the charge.)

Also, there’s been some doubt about whether the pricing/advertising regulations even apply to ticket agents someone other than an airline that sells, provides for, or arranges air transporation not affiliated with the airlines.

Finally, some ticket sellers (particularly air tour operators) reserve the right to raise the price or change the conditions of travel after the consumer has already purchased the services. Usually, the stated reason is something like passing along “fuel surcharges,” increases in the price of seats, etc. DOT Department of Transportation regulations now allow this as long as the consumer gets “conspicuous written notice”, but some sellers still bury the notice in the fine print. Then consumers are caught off guard with post-purchase increases.

DOT is thinking about beefing up the existing “unfair and deceptive practice” rules with some additional requirements and clarifications:

Advertised fares may not show a price different than the entire price paid by the consumer. So, for example, many sellers would have to reverse current practices, and use the fine print or links/popups to break out taxes and fees from a clearly presented total price. This would apply to hotel, tour, or other packages as well as to ticket-alone advertising.

Fares may not be advertised as “one way” if in fact the price is available only for roundtrip travel. Instead, sellers must refer to these fares as “each way” if they reflect only one part of the required roundtrip price.

The new rule would apply to everyone who sells airline tickets — including independent travel agents, online ticket sellers, etc. — not just the airlines.

Optional services like travel insurance and premium seating must be offered on an opt-in rather than an opt-out basis.

The practice of post-purchase price increases in the air transportation portion of packages or tours would be banned outright.

DOT thinks it would be justified in ordering these changes in airfare advertising practices because no other state or federal agency or court has authority to decide what is unfair and deceptive in airfare advertising.

Have you ever submitted a comment in a federal rulemaking?:YesNoNot sure

Click to read the Terms and Conditions & Statement of Consent

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Register

Agreement

Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Site Use/Community Guidelines and Statement of Consent

Please read this document carefully. Because The Regulation Room is part of a research program at Cornell University, you will be asked to agree to the following terms and conditions of site use and consent to participate in the research of which this site is a part.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Regulation Room: Technology to Support Citizen Understanding and Participation in Regulatory Policymaking

This site is part of a research study in how citizens can become more effective in helping government craft better regulations. It is being conducted by researchers in the Cornell University Law School, Computing and Information Science program, and Scheinman Institute for Conflict Resolution, in cooperation with the federal agencies whose proposed rules are featured on this site.

What the study is about

This study uses existing and new technologies and methods to help people develop and communicate their preferences about federal regulatory policy. A moderated discussion environment allows users to learn the details of a federal rulemaking, discuss specific parts of the agency’s proposal, and react to what others’ say about it Our goal is to contribute to the existing research on electronic rulemaking by (1) constructing a large scale public participation web environment; (2) observing group and individual behavioral tendencies in that environment; and (3) developing natural language processing methods to assist in analysis of the information submitted.

Content submitted to the site may be extracted, summarized, and analyzed. At the close of the official comment period for the regulation, summaries and analyses, as well as all content submitted to this site, will be offered to the federal agency developing the rule, to assist them in their decision making.

You may read the site without participating in the study. To do this, we require no information from you.

To participate in discussion of proposed rules, endorse, or otherwise add content to the site, we require you to register. This involves picking a username and password, providing an email address, and agreeing to these terms and conditions. We will use your email only for the following purposes, and will in no event provide it to any other person or entity: (1) password recovery; (2) notices relating to comments you submit or to site events that are significant to continued participation in the discussion; (3) request to participate in a survey about your experience using the site. You may opt out of receiving such notices and/or may decline to participate in the survey. If you chose to register, you’ll have the option of including your real name and a brief bio. You’ll also have the option of making your real name and bio publically viewable. Providing your real name, including a bio, and making either of these public are entirely voluntary.

What we will ask you to do

We encourage users to participate in the rulemaking process by discussing issues in rule, raising questions, and responding to other users’ reactions. Our researchers will summarize this discussion and you will be able to suggest changes to that summary. You may also be able to respond to polls about the rule. The final summary of discussion will be submitted by our researchers to the federal agency for inclusion in its decision-making process. You may have the opportunity to join with other users in drafting joint comments in addition to this summary. You will have the opportunity to “sign on” to such comments drafted by other users. These joint comments will also be submitted to the agency by our researchers. We will not report to the agency any individually identifying information that is not publicly available on the site.

Short web-based questionnaires will appear when you submit content to our site. When you initially register, you be asked about your experience in participating in federal rulemakings and about the nature of your interest in that rule. This information will help us determine the effectiveness of the site and may be used in summarizing and analyzing the discussion for the agency. We may contact you using the email address you provide to ask you about your experiences using Regulation Room and how these experiences relate to your usage of the internet for other purposes and your other experiences with government participation. Response to any questions for this purpose is completely voluntary.

Risks and benefits

The goal of the project is to improve communication between government regulators and the public for the purposes of creating regulation that better meets the needs of the public at reduced cost. Individuals would generally participate because they are interested in more effective regulation, reduced cost, or both.

The principle risk of participation is that an individual might choose to provide sensitive personal information even though we do not require such information and warn users against including such information. The Profile page allows users to provide their real name and a brief bio, and to make both publically viewable. Users might include other personal data, such as address, telephone number, employer, and social security number. This information could then be viewed and used by others.

We will attempt to keep web site server log data and optional web survey data protected against public disclosure.

Compensation

There is no compensation for participating.

Taking part is voluntary

Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You do not have to reply to any emails, and your participation or withdrawal will not affect your current or future relationship with Cornell University. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.

Modification of Terms and Conditions of Use

Cornell University reserves the right to revise these Terms and Conditions of Use at any time by updating this page. Your continued use of the site constitutes your agreement to comply with such revisions, so you should visit this page from time to time.

PRIVACY NOTICE

In any sort of report we make public and/or provide to the Federal agency we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you unless you have elected to make such information publicly visible on the site.

Please note that material you post on Regulation Room is provided voluntarily; it will be publicly visible on the web site and might be publicly disclosed in a rulemaking docket.

SITEUSE/COMMUNITY GUIDELINES

We welcome your use of our site and participation in our research. To keep the experience a positive one for all our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below. By submitting content to this site, you are agreeing to the following rules:

You are fully responsible for the content you post. You may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates someone else’s right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. Furthermore, you may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated.

We may monitor user-generated content and we reserve the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that, in our sole judgment, violates these rules. Repeated violation of these rules may result in your being banned from the site.

By posting material to this site, you represent that you have the legal right to reproduce, adapt, display, and distribute this material to others. Neither Cornell University nor any other person or entity responsible for this site will be responsible for posted information that may infringe on a third party’s copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights.

We may summarize and/or republish the content of your comments. By posting you agree that your comments may be summarized, analyzed, and republished online and in print.

You may use this site only for non-commercial purposes. This site prohibits any actions to solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity.

You may not interrupt, or attempt to interrupt, the operation of the site in any way. Unauthorized use or modification of any information stored on the site may result in criminal and/or civil prosecution under federal, state and local law. You may not to use the site to carry out any unauthorized alteration of any data or information on the site or to conduct any activity that infringes on the copyright, patent, trademark, service mark or other rights of any person or entity. You may not restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying any service conducted on the site.

Cornell University reserves the right to limit or deny your access to the site or take other appropriate action if you violate any provision of these Guidelines, or if you conduct any activity that violates the rights of any person or entity or that we in our sole discretion deem unlawful, offensive, threatening, abusive, or potentially harmful or malicious.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

If you have questions about these provisions, this site or the research program it is part of, you can contact Mary Newhart, Executive Director, Cornell e-Regulatory Research Initiative, mjn3@cornell.edu, 607-255-3660.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 607-255-5138 or access their website at http://www.irb.cornell.edu/. You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously through the Ethicspoint website or by calling toll free at 1-866-293-3077. Ethicspoint is an independent organization that serves as a liaison between the University and the person bringing the complaint so that anonymity can be ensured.

If you agree to these terms and conditions, we will e-mail you a link to a copy of this consent form for your records.

This form will be kept by the researchers for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB September 30, 2009; revisions on February 19, 2010, April 12 2010, February 16, 2011, and August 18, 2011.

STATEMENT OF CONSENT

I have read the above information, I am at least 18 years of age, I agree to these Terms and Conditions and Site Use/Community Guidelines, and I consent to participate in the research program of which Regulation Room is a part.

Agree

Disagree

This is a horribly designed site. It took me 5 minutes just to find the proposed rules that we're supposed to comment on. There should be a "Proposed Rules" button on the main menu bar at the top of the page, not something unclearly labeled "Rule Dashboard" off to the side (with the type running vertically, so it's hard to read). A properly designed Web site should be intuitive. It shouldn't need to include videos that explain how to use it. You do a nice job of explaining the proposed rules. That same clarity should extend to the design of the site itself.
Steve Millburg
Homewood, AL
stevemillburg@yahoo.com

This website isn't working correctly. I'm logged in and when I click on the box to start submitting a comment, a pop up comes up telling me to log in - I do so, click on the box, and the log in pop up comes up again. The comment box behind gets grayed out and there's no way to type in anything! I've tried it on three different web browsers and it happens on all three.

I have never seen a more poorly deisgned site where it is hard to guess what and how to provide feedback.

Says "Page not nound" when I try to activate my account from the link in your e-mail to me.

This site is extremelety difficult to use. I try to make a comment, it asks for a log-in, I log-in, I try to make a comment, it asks for a log-in. This is Groundhog Day. Just give me a fricking e-mail address and I'll mail in my comments.

This site is seriously buggy. I have now entered my comments two times and neither time have they been accepted. The pop-up windows come up at random times. I wasn't allowed to edit at one point. This site has potential but it needs serious work.

site is poorly designed and NOT user friendly. Too much is counterintuitive, and directions are muddled at best.

will not accept my comment!

Wow, this is a really bad site - I've registered and tried to confirm my registration but I keep getting a blank page that says "done"?? When I go to the site to try and sign in I get a statement that says "this account does not exist"????

One must have the patience of Job to add a comment on this very badly created website. The Webmaster should be ashamed of him/herself. Take some classes to learn how to do it right!